Search

Introduction: It is not known whether the optimal atrioventricular (AVopt) delay varies between left ventricular (LV) pacing site during endocardial biventricular pacing (BiVP) and may therefore needs consideration. Methods: We assessed the hemodynamic AVopt in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing endocardial LV lead implantation. AVopt was assessed during atrio‐BiVP with a "roving LV lead." Up to four locations were studied: mid‐lateral wall, mid‐septum (or a close alternative), site of greatest hemodynamic improvement, and LV lead implant site. The AVopt was compared to a fixed AV delay of 180 ms. Results: Seventeen patients were included (12 male, aged 66.5 ± 12.8 years, ejection fraction 26 ± 7%, 16 left bundle branch block or high percentage of right ventricular pacing [RVP], QRS duration 167 ± 27 ms). In most locations (62/63), AVopt increased systolic blood pressure during BiVP compared with RVP (relative improvement 6 mmHg, interquartile range [IQR] 4–9 mmHg). Compared to a fixed AV delay, the hemodynamic improvement at AVopt was higher (1 mmHg, IQR 0.2–2.6 mmHg, p <.001). Within most patients (16/17), we observed a difference in AVopt between pacing sites (median paced AVopt 209 ms, IQR 117–250). Within this range, the hemodynamic impact of these differences was small (median loss 0.6 mmHg, IQR 0.1–2.6 mmHg). Conclusion: Within a patient, different endocardial LV lead locations have slightly different hemodynamic AVopt which are superior to a fixed AV delay. The hemodynamic consequence of applying an optimum from a different lead location is small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we consider why students in poor and rural regions of China are dropping out of school in numbers that may be greater than official statistics admit. With questions about education quality among the most intractable in Education for All initiatives across the developing world, we sketch a portrait of education in a remote mountain village community as it might be painted from the perspective of a primary school dropout: a portrait in which education quality is well in the shadows. We indicate the limits of the view that commonly relates the phenomenon of school dropout primarily with poverty, a lack of school resources and inequities in resource distribution, suggesting that the picture is more nuanced and subtly shaded at local levels. Our research indicates that the education system in the radically transitional society that China is today brings with it values that clash with those of its citizens, particularly those who are marginalized and cannot easily adjust, perhaps because of their disadvantaged socio-economic, cultural and geographic location. In an ethnographic study in a poor, rural area in Yunnan province, we found significant disjunctions in values: between those of the school system and those of parents with regard to the aims and purposes of education; between those of the curriculum and those of teachers with regard to their role in the classroom vis-a-vis knowledge as represented in textbooks; between those of government education policy and the concerns of the remote rural poor with regard to resource distribution; and between those of a newly market-oriented society and educational ideals about teachers' and students' abilities. We also offer some insight into the scale and complexity of the problems associated with a lack of education quality and students' dropping out of school as a consequence, which cannot be revealed by the official 1% dropout rate.

This paper situates the philosophy and politics of partnership in educational development cooperation in the context of wider epistemological and axiological shifts in contemporary social theory. Partnerships in development cooperation are also considered in the light of the alleged failure of international development assistance, a claim that has received much attention with the publication of, among others, William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good" (2006) and of Dambisa Moyo's "Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa" (2008). Partnership as a development strategy offers one response to these claims, but if shared development objectives and policies, shared ownership, shared decisions about where aid is targeted, shared rights, shared responsibilities, and shared implementation strategies still leave the education development community facing challenges as big as ever, it might be time, the paper concludes, to consider whether the concept of partnership has not been expanded too far as a modality in development cooperation.

Drawing on work in epistemology and the philosophy of science, this paper seeks to provide very general reasons for why a comparative perspective needs to be applied to the inferential procedures of research methodologies where these concern the issue of justifying knowledge claims. In particular, the paper explores the role of culture on a number of important patterns of reasoning that figure in inferential arguments in research methodologies. The patterns examined are induction, both enumerative and analytical, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and abductive inference. In each case it is argued that substantive theories about the world, including cultures, significantly affect inferential procedures. Examples chosen to illustrate this in more detail mostly reflect the impact of Confucian heritage cultures on inference.

This article considers the challenge of sustainable change and development in education from the perspective of complexity theory. Complexity theory's concept of emergence implies that, given a significant degree of complexity in a particular environment, new properties and behaviours emerge that are not necessarily contained in the essence of the constituent elements, or easily able to be predicted from a knowledge of initial conditions. These concepts of emergent phenomena from a critical mass, associated with notions of lock-in, path dependence, and inertial momentum, contribute to a perspective on continuity and change that indicates what conditions might need to be in place for the emergence of sustainable, positive, system-wide change and development in education.

HistoryThis paper considers questions of continuity and change in education from the perspective of complexity theory, introducing the field to educationists who might not be familiar with it. Given a significant degree of complexity in a particular environment (or "dynamical system"), new properties and behaviours, which are not necessarily contained in the essence of the constituent elements or able to be predicted from a knowledge of initial conditions, will emerge. These concepts of emergent phenomena from a critical mass, associated with notions of lock-in, path dependence, and inertial momentum, suggest that it is in the dynamic interactions and adaptive orientation of a system that new phenomena, new properties and behaviours, emerge. The focus thus shifts from a concern with decontextualised and universalised essence to contextualised and contingent complex wholes. This is where complexity theory seeks the levers of history. The paper posits the notion of inertial momentum as the conceptual link between the principle of emergent phenomena as developed principally in the natural sciences and the notion of socio-historical change in human society. It is argued that educational and institutional change is less a consequence of effecting change in one particular factor or variable, and more a case of generating momentum in a new direction by attention to as many factors as possible. Complexity theory suggests, in other words, that what it might take to change a school's inertial momentum from an ethos of failure is massive and sustained intervention at every possible level until the phenomenon of learning excellence emerges from this new set of interactions among these new factors, and sustains itself autocatalytically. The paper concludes with a summary consideration of the conditions that contribute to the emergence of new properties and behaviours in a system.

Following a brief introduction to complexity theory, this paper considers how various themes in the field relate to the philosophical study of education. Issues and questions introduced include the challenge of complexity theory for the philosophy of education--and, conversely, some critical challenges for complexity theory from educational philosophy; complexity theory and educational continuity and change; the importance that complexity theory places on interpretive perspectives that are transphenomenal, transdisciplinary and transdiscursive; the risks of simplifying complexity to a point that excludes its ambiguities and includes only its dominant usages; the degree of coherence between Dewey's philosophical orientation and that of complexity theory; how Foucault might be read as a complexity theorist; how educational research informed by complexity theory might ask different questions with different analytical perspectives--connectionist, holistic, non-linear, rather than input-output "black-box" causal modelling, for example; and how curriculum, teaching, the epistemology of schooling, and the "education of consciousness"--understood as an emergent phenomenon--might be different when viewed from the perspective of complexity theory.

This paper introduces some of the debates in the field of critical thinking by highlighting differences among thinkers such as Siegel, Ennis, Paul, McPeck, and Martin, and poses some questions that arise from these debates. Does rationality transcend particular cultures, or are there different kinds of thinking, different styles of reasoning? What is the relationship between critical thinking and learning? In what ways does the moral domain overlap with these largely epistemic and pedagogical issues? The paper concludes by showing how Peters, Evers, Chan and Yan, Ryan and Louie, Luntley, Lam, Doddington, and Kwak, respond to these questions.

The implementation of education programmes in different cultures invites the question whether we are justified in doing so in cultures that may reject the programmes' underlying principles. Are there indeed ethical principles and educational ideals that can be justified as applicable to all cultures? After a consideration of Zygmunt Bauman's postmodern rejection of the possibility of universal ethics, I cite and extend Harvey Siegel's defence of multiculturalism as a transcultural ethical ideal. I conclude the paper with a justification of the transcultural normative reach of moral principles that I have elsewhere defended as the ethics of integrity. The paper's significance lies in its justification of educational interventions founded in these principles across different cultures.

This paper addresses the problem of post-Apartheid South African schools as ineffective learning environments, and the question whether there are strategies for enhancing learning that are more effective and that might be more easily and successfully implemented than an outcomes-based education. Because of historical and situational constraints, an outcomes-based education has limited potential for enhancing learning there. We argue that there are other factors, notably proximal variables such as teaching strategies that focus on the setting of learning goals and the provision of feedback and reinforcement to students, and the quality of teaching itself, that could more effectively enhance learning in South African schools, and that could be more successfully implemented. The paper thus aims to recommend and justify a policy decision in South African education to limit the implementation of an outcomes-based education to only those selected aspects that have been shown to enhance learning most effectively, and to implement other effective strategies for enhancing learning that might be more successfully introduced into schools.

Responds to the article "Curriculum Reform in South Africa: A Critical Analysis of Outcomes-Based Education" by Jonathan Jansen. States that "Curriculum 2005" too strongly emphasizes procedural knowledge. Proposes a less radical version of outcomes-based education in which teachers integrate propositional, procedural, and dispositional knowledge into the curriculum. (CMK)